Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911 - Page 9

Originally posted by faust9I'm still waiting for a response to my post at the top of page 3. Pro Bush Zealots can throw conjectures and what not, but very few of them seem to actually want to ask hard questions and fewer still will actually answer the tough ones like "Was war the ONLY solution, and if so why?"

This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"

This whole terror discussion is clouding the issue of general mismanagement because no matter who was in the WH at the time, the immediate reaction to the events would have been the same.

The actions after the attack are what counts, and I find it quite odd that we have a two-bit dictator in custody while a mass murderer runs free. "Why is that people?"

You guys can attack Clarke all you want but as has been pointed out, Clarke is not the first to come forward and say "These guys are AFU!"

Also, I like the masked quote of Colin Powell the in point one Naples (I know I said I'd never read another word from you but your long post intrigued me nontheless). Clinton may or may not have handed a plan over to Bush, that still remains to be seen because the Clintonians say they did. The fact of the matter is though Clinton handed over the man who formulated the plan!!! Hmmm, the man with the plan was in the Bush Wh, but was ignored. The Immediate respons to 911 from Rummy (Two people have said that similar statements came from his mouth) "Lets get Iraq!" (paraphrase).

My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers. I know what it would take for me to shift in the other direction_ Fire Rummy, and Cheney and show some honesty. ADMIT Iraq wasn't the ball of wax it was initially cracked up to be. Then I might change my views.

I find it odd that I dislike the administration but I'm willing to admit what they could do to sway me. I have NEVER seen a similar statement come from the mouth (or fingers) of a true beleaver.

I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.

Originally posted by faust9Also, I like how you honed in on the insignificant part while leaving the tough questions unanswered. Nice job.

You have prefaced you post in a way that if anyone replies then they are a "Bush Zealot". So if I reply I will be labeled that, look at the last three posts. Despite the fact that I have stated many times that I don't care about bush in particular. But what someone says doesn't matter, it is what you conclude about that person that matters. You have proven that over and over.

Originally posted by NaplesXNo I defend him from silly left wing attacks that people such as your self lob at him. There is a difference.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm far from left wing. I've voted repub in every election, but unless BushCo does what I requir I'll abstain in the upcoming election. I don't like Kerry, but I really don't like the current Admin!

The left are not the only detractors. There are meny conservatives like myself who have been asking the tough question and not getting the desired responses.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

1. UN resolutions. All of them. I have kids and you can't just make rules without offering consequences as a result of skirting them. There was no real incentive to follow the agreement. The UN was unwilling to enforce their own rules. It was a infinite loop that had to be broken.

2. Constant hostilities to coalition forces. I remember almost a daily thing that planes were being shot at by Iraqi AA weapons. This was enough to go in. I guess everyone forgets the ceasefire agreement that was in place that he broke how many times.

3. Crappy intel. The whole world knew SH had WMD and used them. What no-one knew was where they were. Not to mention if they even existed. It was widely known the hatred SH had for US and the Bush family. GWB really had to choose between relying on SH to be honest, or assuming the worst. The common knowledge amoung intel agencies is that SH had some indirect links to Al Qaeda, how could he have taken a chance.

4. Maybe GWB did not know at the time, I don't know, but the UN was not being an honest party in this whole thing and may have added to the problem. If there had been no war we may never have found out about the inside corruption.

5. Iraq is no longer a possible threat as it has been for a long time. Iraq is now our friend, and that would never happen with SH in power.

Expanding government programs to gain the vote of a particular group--Not conservative.

Parts of the Patriot act--Not Conservative

Wanting to ammend the constitution limiting states rights for political gain--Not conservative.

Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state--not conservative.

Spending the most time on vacation than anyother president--No classification but wrong nontheless.

This guy has done many things that are LeftWing but you don't seem to want to see that. Add the Iraq conflicks when all eyes should be on removing TERRORISTS not two-bit dictators and you have yourself one disgrunteled conservative.

And finally its what I conclude that matters. I don't vote simply because some party tells me to vote. I vote for who I CONCLUDE is the right candidate for me. Unfortunetly my candidate was slandered in the 2000 campaign by Bush.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Expanding government programs to gain the vote of a particular group--Not conservative.

Parts of the Patriot act--Not Conservative

Wanting to ammend the constitution limiting states rights for political gain--Not conservative.

Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state--not conservative.

Spending the most time on vacation than anyother president--No classification but wrong nontheless.

This guy has done many things that are LeftWing but you don't seem to want to see that. Add the Iraq conflicks when all eyes should be on removing TERRORISTS not two-bit dictators and you have yourself one disgrunteled conservative.

And finally its what I conclude that matters. I don't vote simply because some party tells me to vote. I vote for who I CONCLUDE is the right candidate for me. Unfortunetly my candidate was slandered in the 2000 campaign by Bush.

I pretty much agree here except to say that the "Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state" I would argue is extremely conservative sad to say and it is wrong.

I was a Bush supporter twice for Gov. of Texas and once for Pres. of the US. I will NOT vote for Bush again.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Originally posted by NaplesXI think that because of a number of reasons, war was the only option.

Why:

1. UN resolutions. All of them. I have kids and you can't just make rules without offering consequences as a result of skirting them. There was no real incentive to follow the agreement. The UN was unwilling to enforce their own rules. It was a infinite loop that had to be broken.

2. Constant hostilities to coalition forces. I remember almost a daily thing that planes were being shot at by Iraqi AA weapons. This was enough to go in. I guess everyone forgets the ceasefire agreement that was in place that he broke how many times.

3. Crappy intel. The whole world knew SH had WMD and used them. What no-one knew was where they were. Not to mention if they even existed. It was widely known the hatred SH had for US and the Bush family. GWB really had to choose between relying on SH to be honest, or assuming the worst. The common knowledge amoung intel agencies is that SH had some indirect links to Al Qaeda, how could he have taken a chance.

4. Maybe GWB did not know at the time, I don't know, but the UN was not being an honest party in this whole thing and may have added to the problem. If there had been no war we may never have found out about the inside corruption.

5. Iraq is no longer a possible threat as it has been for a long time. Iraq is now our friend, and that would never happen with SH in power.

Those are my opinions on that matter. That is one question.

1) Soverign nations are not children. It's simplistic to make this equation. Next, we HAD INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME. THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB. THEY FOUND THE EXACT SAME THINGS AS WE DID. BUSHCO WAS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ANYWAY> WHY COULDN"T WE WAIT UNTIL THE INSPECTIONS WERE COMPLETED?

2) I'll concede SH did fire at warplanes a few times over the years. Again though I was in the military and I don't recall "daily attacks". This is your strongest argument.

3) This is not a strong argument. Go back to page one and read. Shelf lives for the chemical weapons we suspected him of having are not very long (mustard gas is the exception). Nuclear programs are tough to come by. In fact, there are a couple of "Outlaw regeimes" out there who DO have WMD now. And the link between the Secular Iraq, and the muslim fundamental Al Qua'ida was weak to nonexistant to begin with.

4) Corruption is indemic in large beuracies. You don't think there are corrupt people doing business here and now in the US. Need I point out KBR?

5) Iraq was never a possible threat. What do you think SH was insane enough to launch nonexistant ICBM's at us? The guy knew what the consequences of his actions would be. I figured his posturing would stave off a US attack thus protecting his power base (again, read page 1. DMZ and I had a brief exchange over this).

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by faust9I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm far from left wing. I've voted repub in every election, but unless BushCo does what I requir I'll abstain in the upcoming election. I don't like Kerry, but I really don't like the current Admin!

The left are not the only detractors. There are meny conservatives like myself who have been asking the tough question and not getting the desired responses.

Amen on the third party thing---but for fiscal reasons.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by FellowshipI pretty much agree here except to say that the "Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state" I would argue is extremely conservative sad to say and it is wrong.

I was a Bush supporter twice for Gov. of Texas and once for Pres. of the US. I will NOT vote for Bush again.

Fellows

No, social conservatives want to break down the wall. Strict conservatives don't want the wall taken down because government should not interfear with religion. Taking the wall down allows for government meddeling in religious matters. Social conservatives believe we are a christian nation and as such we all should adhere to some christian standard.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by faust9No, social conservatives want to break down the wall. Strict conservatives don't want the wall taken down because government should not interfear with religion. Taking the wall down allows for government meddeling in religious matters. Social conservatives believe we are a christian nation and as such we all should adhere to some christian standard.

I think we are basically saying the same thing. Social conservatives (which you must admit Bush panders to) are conservative and wish for the wall between church and state taken down so to speak. This wall being taken down is NOT a liberal platform. It is a conservative platform. Libertarian and liberal platforms are 100% behind keeping the wall in place as I am personally.

I take the more libertarian view with this matter that the wall is needed. Church has no place in Government. I am all for a Pluralistic Secular Government.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Originally posted by FellowshipI think we are basically saying the same thing. Social conservatives (which you must admit Bush panders to) are conservative and wish for the wall between church and state taken down so to speak. This wall being taken down is NOT a liberal platform. It is a conservative platform. Libertarian and liberal platforms are 100% behind keeping the wall in place as I am personally.

I take the more libertarian view with this matter that the wall is needed. Church has no place in Government. I am all for a Pluralistic Secular Government.

Fellows

Yes, I agree. That was my point because many people automatically associate Bush with being a conservative when in reality he is socially conservative. As a conservative, I don't want the gov'mnt bothering me while I'm at mass. My religion is mine and should not be tampered with by the government.

This is an across the board belief except for social conservatives. They want government fingers in their till for some reason.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by faust9This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"

Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.

Iraq has been a threat and a destabilizing force for a long time, that even ABBers agree had to be dealt with sooner or later.

A lot of our military assets were already in the area, It provided a perfect opportunity to persuade or take him out. Now bring in the reasons that I mentioned in the other answer and you can start to understand why he did it.

"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."

This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.

The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.

Edit: Oh yeah the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were rooted and on the run. That is considered a victory in my book. Bush moved on to the next problem in the area.

Originally posted by faust9Yes, I agree. That was my point because many people automatically associate Bush with being a conservative when in reality he is socially conservative. As a conservative, I don't want the gov'mnt bothering me while I'm at mass. My religion is mine and should not be tampered with by the government.

This is an across the board belief except for social conservatives. They want government fingers in their till for some reason.

I agree completely and this "Religious Right" business in government affairs trying to wag all peoples to their tune is just beyond reasonable. I am a Christian in the truest sense of the term and I do not support the political sin far too many Churches, Ministries and so-called "Christians" are getting involved in with the government.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Originally posted by NaplesXClarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.

Iraq has been a threat and a destabilizing force for a long time, that even ABBers agree had to be dealt with sooner or later.

A lot of our military assets were already in the area, It provided a perfect opportunity to persuade or take him out. Now bring in the reasons that I mentioned in the other answer and you can start to understand why he did it.

"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."

This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.

The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.

We did not have a substantial number of forces in the area. We had forces in Afganastan which those forces are still there in large part. We had a base in Bahrain and SA which both had minimal numbers of troops. We had one maybe two subs, one or two fast frigits and one carrier if I recall correctly. Not substantial.

And don't you think its odd that the first "problem" we addresses had little to nothing to do with the "actual problem" associated with OBL?

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by faust9We did not have a substantial number of forces in the area. We had forces in Afganastan which those forces are still there in large part. We had a base in Bahrain and SA which both had minimal numbers of troops. We had one maybe two subs, one or two fast frigits and one carrier if I recall correctly. Not substantial.

And don't you think its odd that the first "problem" we addresses had little to nothing to do with the "actual problem" associated with OBL?

Um the very first thing that was attended to was Al Qaeda and the taliban. Not Iraq. The second thing was Iraq. That blows the theory that it was top of GWB's list. It was not.

Even if it was, he did what was best for the country and take out the haven of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. Then he took out Iraq and SH.

About 1/3 of the needed troops were in the area; however, a large portion of the 52,000 troops referenced are not included in the 130,000 because they are still performing CENTCOM related tasks in countries other than Iraq (i.e Afganastan, Bahrain, etc).

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by NaplesXUm the very first thing that was attended to was Al Qaeda and the taliban. Not Iraq. The second thing was Iraq. That blows the theory that it was top of GWB's list. It was not.

Even if it was, he did what was best for the country and take out the haven of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. Then he took out Iraq and SH.

It was on the top of the neo-con list (Rummy, Cheney, Perle...). A handful of people have come forward saying the immediate response to 911 was going to be an attack on Iraq, not on the taliban. In fact I seem to recall a lot of conjecture of the sort immediatly after 911 about going into Iraq.

Finally, we drove the Talliban, and OBL into hiding only. They are still pulling the purse strings. Will capturing OBL end terrorism? No, but it will satiate it IMO. It would have quelled the terrorist networks more effectively than invading a muslim/arab nation based on weak evidence.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

About 1/3 of the needed troops were in the area; however, a large portion of the 52,000 troops referenced are not included in the 130,000 because they are still performing CENTCOM related tasks in countries other than Iraq (i.e Afganastan, Bahrain, etc).

Forces and battleships were taken from all around that continent, if I remember correctly. Do you want to argue numbers?

I will put it a little differently:

A considerable amount of assets were in the area, this making it somewhat of an easier and/or quicker to deploy the Iraq plan.

Originally posted by NaplesXForces and battleships were taken from all around that continent, if I remember correctly. Do you want to argue numbers?

I will put it a little differently:

A considerable amount of assets were in the area, this making it somewhat of an easier and/or quicker to deploy the Iraq plan.

No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.

P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by faust9It was on the top of the neo-con list (Rummy, Cheney, Perle...). A handful of people have come forward saying the immediate response to 911 was going to be an attack on Iraq, not on the taliban. In fact I seem to recall a lot of conjecture of the sort immediatly after 911 about going into Iraq.

Finally, we drove the Talliban, and OBL into hiding only. They are still pulling the purse strings. Will capturing OBL end terrorism? No, but it will satiate it IMO. It would have quelled the terrorist networks more effectively than invading a muslim/arab nation based on weak evidence.

So what, what different does it make what position Iraq was in, as far as priorities for the admin?

Are you saying that Iraq would have just become a peace loving haven left to the devices of SH?

Like I said, it had to be addressed at some point, and no-one else seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Bush did, so what. Is the MI in a better place now? Many experts say yes, some say no. Let's wait and see. But until we know how can you assume you know it all and say it is not?

Originally posted by faust9No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.

P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.

So you are saying that there were no assets in the area that made the deployment easier?

The flap was over the heavy machinery not being able to come in through turkey. because they flip flopped. They had to move it by ship down to the other entry point. I am not sure it was about it not being there.

Originally posted by faust9No, the assets were not their either. Do you think we keep battalions of unused tanks in the middle east? No we had to fly/ship all of the armaments over there. In fact there was a little flap at the beginning of the conflict because a whole battalion of heavy weaponry had not arrived prior to the invasion.

P.S. I'll source my above statements later. I have things to do at the moment. Aloha for now.

here is an excerpt from a report for congress dated January 13, 2003

Titled: Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations

"Aside from the deployments in the Balkans where the United States has about 12,000 troops, operations continue in Afghanistan where U.S. troops number about 7,000. DOD has not released information on the current deployment situation for U.S. Air Force units: however many air assets could possibly respond to operational requirements for either Iraq or Afghanistan from their current bases, if aerial refueling is possible. While the Department of Defense could meet the overall manpower requirements of an Iraqi invasion, an issue of particular concern is whether sufficient low density-high demand assets can be made available. These include assets such as the EA-6B aircraft used to engage air defense radars, the AWACS and JSTARS reconnaissance/air control aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, Combat-Air-Search and rescue (CSAR), and all special operations forces (SOF). Demands on special operations forces have been particularly high over the last year. Most notably in Afghanistan, but there have also been training/advisory missions in the Philippines, Georgia (Graze), and Yemen as part of a world-wide antiterrorism campaign, in addition to anti-drug operations in Columbia. And, recently Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that he intended to increase further the SOF commitment to the war on terrorism . 20 It is in this context, that some have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would detract from the resources available to continue efforts to pursue the world-wide war on terrorism, which they view as currently a greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq."

Originally posted by NaplesXSo what, what different does it make what position Iraq was in, as far as priorities for the admin?

Are you saying that Iraq would have just become a peace loving haven left to the devices of SH?

Like I said, it had to be addressed at some point, and no-one else seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Bush did, so what. Is the MI in a better place now? Many experts say yes, some say no. Let's wait and see. But until we know how can you assume you know it all and say it is not?

One sentence makes all that moot.

WHERE'S THE WOMD?

None of these other things matter. That and that alone is why this war was able to take place.

If the Bush admin. had plans earlier it just makes it that more damning.

That's it in a nutshell. Anything else is an attempt to spin the situation.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by faust9My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers.

I disagree with the premise of the question, but I will try to answer it the best i can.

Nothing. Bush zealots are just that so why try to change them.

But like I said, I am not a "Bush Zealot, but I know when people are just attacking him, and loosing grip on any type of reality.

This kind of thing happens here all the time, and I feel the need to say something if only so that these things don't get at least challenged. I am not defending Bush or his policies, I state when I agree with them, but more importantly point out that not everyone just goes along with what the lemming media proliferate.

Originally posted by NaplesXClarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."

This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.

The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.

You know, you're a bag of contradictions. First you discredit Clarke and then.....you quote him. You say let's not dwell on him anymore...then you quote him. I guess he's only worthy of mention when it benefits your "opinions". Iraq wasn't a threat as Powell had been quoted as saying as late as 2001:

Quote:

We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq, Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with Face the Nation. We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them it's been quite a success for ten years

Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.

Saddams forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago, Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at

Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.

Originally posted by GilschYou know, you're a bag of contradictions. First you discredit Clarke and then.....you quote him. You say let's not dwell on him anymore...then you quote him. I guess he's only worthy of mention when it benefits your "opinions". Iraq wasn't a threat as Powell had been quoted as saying as late as 2001:

I quoted clarke because you all have adopted him as the savior to oust Bush. Thus, to you he is an authority. I used your messiah's words against him to further point out the further holes in your your arguments.

Originally posted by NaplesXI quoted clarke because you all have adopted him as the savior to oust Bush. Thus, to you he is an authority. I used your messiah's words against him to further point out the further holes in your your arguments.

Yeah, sure you did. Great argument. Bash Clarke and then quote him to make what you seem is a positive point for Bush.
So tell me, if he isn't an authority, why were the Reps. full of praise for him today in their opening statements to him? From reading your posts all over AO, everyone knows you're one of the few out to defend your hero Bush at all costs. It's cool. To each his own. -shrug-

Originally posted by GilschYeah, sure you did. Great argument. Bash Clarke and then quote him to make what you seem is a positive point for Bush.
So tell me, if he isn't an authority, why were the Reps. full of praise for him today in their opening statements to him? From reading your posts all over AO, everyone knows you're one of the few out to defend your hero Bush at all costs. It's cool. To each his own. -shrug-

yeah except I don't care about bush except that he should be given a fair shake. I guess my own words that I have typed over and over have said the same thing, all that does not matter.

So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.

Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush. Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.

Originally posted by NaplesX
So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.

So it's just a coincidence that you seem to side with Bush no matter what? Ok, guess stranger things have happened. :/

Quote:

Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush.

If I see lies, mismanagement, deception, corruption, etc, you bet I'm gonna be critical of the next admin. I haven't had a problem with putting my party membership aside to study and research the issues I comment on. I'm an American before I'm a republican.

Quote:

Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.

I think I'm being more than fair and reasonable with you. I even said I would give you the benefit of the doubt re: your claims that you're not a republican even though your posts "suggest" otherwise and even though you dismiss anyone who comes out and says anything negative( even though it may be/is true.)about Bush and co. in a childish manner. You're not innocent of what you accuse others of Naples. Read your posts to refresh your memory.

Originally posted by GilschSo it's just a coincidence that you seem to side with Bush no matter what? Ok, guess stranger things have happened. :/ If I see lies, mismanagement, deception, corruption, etc, you bet I'm gonna be critical of the next admin. I haven't had a problem with putting my party membership aside to study and research the issues I comment on. I'm an American before I'm a republican. I think I'm being more than fair and reasonable with you. I even said I would give you the benefit of the doubt re: your claims that you're not a republican even though your posts "suggest" otherwise and even though you dismiss anyone who comes out and says anything negative( even though it may be/is true.)about Bush and co. in a childish manner. You're not innocent of what you accuse others of Naples. Read your posts to refresh your memory.

Ok let's see how honest you are.

Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?

Did he lie also?

Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?

If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?

I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.

I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.

I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no. All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop. I am disappointed that so few of you can rise above and be civil, fair, and honest. I am glad that I do not base my view of humanity and the good that exists in people. But unfortunately, the attitudes and general disrespect found in AO in particular is a bad example for anyone who happens upon it.

Originally posted by NaplesXhere is an excerpt from a report for congress dated January 13, 2003

Titled: Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations

"Aside from the deployments in the Balkans where the United States has about 12,000 troops, operations continue in Afghanistan where U.S. troops number about 7,000. DOD has not released information on the current deployment situation for U.S. Air Force units: however many air assets could possibly respond to operational requirements for either Iraq or Afghanistan from their current bases, if aerial refueling is possible. While the Department of Defense could meet the overall manpower requirements of an Iraqi invasion, an issue of particular concern is whether sufficient low density-high demand assets can be made available. These include assets such as the EA-6B aircraft used to engage air defense radars, the AWACS and JSTARS reconnaissance/air control aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, Combat-Air-Search and rescue (CSAR), and all special operations forces (SOF). Demands on special operations forces have been particularly high over the last year. Most notably in Afghanistan, but there have also been training/advisory missions in the Philippines, Georgia (Graze), and Yemen as part of a world-wide antiterrorism campaign, in addition to anti-drug operations in Columbia. And, recently Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that he intended to increase further the SOF commitment to the war on terrorism . 20 It is in this context, that some have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would detract from the resources available to continue efforts to pursue the world-wide war on terrorism, which they view as currently a greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq."

If this is what you consider "considerable amount of assets were in the area" then you are sorely mistanken. The number (12,000) which you posted above is 1/10 that which is there now. Your idea that we had significant forces in the area so, eh, lets topple us a dictator is flawed. Look at how many reservists have been called up for the WMD war.

As of Feb-12, about 150,000 reservists had been activated, and that doesn't include the number of regular forces. If we can have 130,000 troops in Iraq why couldn't we have that many hunting OBL? Why did our priorities get skewed? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in536144.shtml

Yet again, this is inconsequential to the real issue. Why have we toppled a two-bit dictator while the real bad man runs free? Why are we pouring 150 Billion + into rebuilding Iraq when we could be using that money on the home front? An interesting aside: Tax cuts have a much smaller effect on the economy than direct government spending in areas such as technology development, and infrastructure improvements (give people a job and they have money to spend). Imagine what a boost 150 Billion in direct spending would do for the job market. Imagine not having to worry about the possible future drag on the economy caused by this endless spending.

Another thing, you asked "What if they found WMD...." Where are they going to find these weapons? The people who would have made them said "Ain't here." The places where they would have been made were searched and searched again to no avail. The only WMD we found was in the form of a bearing and bearing support mechanism for a very old gas centrifuge design stashed in a scientists garden. How did we find it? The scientist said "here it is." Get over the prospect of finding WMD they are most likely not there according to David Kay (the Iraq war hawk turn weapons inspector turn BushCo detractor).

Quote:

yeah except I don't care about bush except that he should be given a fair shake. I guess my own words that I have typed over and over have said the same thing, all that does not matter.

So I am a bushie, bush lover, neo-con, a right winger, huh? Well if you mean that I do not go along with all of the out of control, ABB crowd, I guess that I am according to that definition. But, absent that definition, you are wrong.

Let me say it again, I don't care who wins the next election. But I hope that you will apply the same standards to him/her if it is not bush. Already that is not the case. Or I would hope that you and others calm down and be fair and reasonable, this is also not the case.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck.

As Gilsch said read what you've said, and then repeat the I'm not a Bush supporter.

Next, your assertion that other reasons for the war were given is technically correct, but lets look at the 2003 sate of the union address to see how much weight was given to WMD versus those other reasons (highlghted in red).

Quote:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

Hmmmm, so much was said about WMD and how SH used WMD, but so little was said about the human rights. I wonder why that is? It kind of puts the Bush administrations focus into perspective when you look at how much was said about WMD and how much was said about "other".

You can proclaim to be protecting the man with out alterior motives (why someone with zero vested interest would do such a thing is well beyond me) but at some point you have to say "Wow that's a good valid point. I'll look into that" I was big enough to say that point 2 was your strongest point, yet I've never seen you say "Wow man, I never thought that so many people would be jumping ship from the administration. Maybe they ARE right."

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...